Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

Behavior: Removing a reference to deleted content (shorthands section does not exist)

← Previous revision Revision as of 22:58, 3 May 2026 Line 209: Line 209: Experienced AfD participants re-visit discussions that they have already participated in. They are looking for new facts, evidence or changes to the article which might change their initial conclusion. In this situation, strike through your previous comment using <s>...</s> (if you are changing your mind) or to explicitly comment "no change" to confirm that you have considered the new evidence but remain unconvinced. Experienced AfD participants re-visit discussions that they have already participated in. They are looking for new facts, evidence or changes to the article which might change their initial conclusion. In this situation, strike through your previous comment using <s>...</s> (if you are changing your mind) or to explicitly comment "no change" to confirm that you have considered the new evidence but remain unconvinced.

Please remember that AfD is a busy and repetitive place. The people who volunteer to work the AfD process may seem terse, gruff and abrupt. They are not (usually) being intentionally rude. We value [[Wikipedia:Civility|civility]] and always try to [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]]. However, often over a hundred articles are nominated for deletion each day. Experienced [[Wikipedia:Wikipedian|Wikipedians]] have been through thousands of deletion discussions and have read and thought through many of the same arguments many times before. For speed, some employ shorthands (described in the {{section link|#Shorthands}} section below) rather than typing out the same reasoning and arguments again and again. They are trying to be efficient, not rude. Please remember that AfD is a busy and repetitive place. The people who volunteer to work the AfD process may seem terse, gruff and abrupt. They are not (usually) being intentionally rude. We value [[Wikipedia:Civility|civility]] and always try to [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]]. However, often over a hundred articles are nominated for deletion each day. Experienced [[Wikipedia:Wikipedian|Wikipedians]] have been through thousands of deletion discussions and have read and thought through many of the same arguments many times before. For speed, some employ shorthands rather than typing out the same reasoning and arguments again and again. They are trying to be efficient, not rude.

Accusations of [[WP:VAIN|vanity]] and other motives should be avoided as they are not in themselves reasons for deletion or merging. The argument "[[WP:NPOV|non-neutral point of view]]" is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion or merging either. Accusations of [[WP:VAIN|vanity]] and other motives should be avoided as they are not in themselves reasons for deletion or merging. The argument "[[WP:NPOV|non-neutral point of view]]" is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion or merging either.